Objective To estimate performance of a single-nucleotide-polymorphism–based noninvasive prenatal screen for fetal aneuploidy in high-risk and low-risk populations upon single venopuncture. Methods One thousand sixty-four maternal blood samples from 7 weeks of gestation and beyond were included; one thousand fifty-one were within specifications, 518 (49.3%) low-risk. Cell-free DNA was amplified, sequenced, and analyzed using the Next-generation Aneuploidy Test Using SNPs algorithm. Samples were called as trisomies 21, 18, 13, or monosomy X, or euploid, and male or female. Results Nine hundred sixty-six samples (91.9%) successfully generated a cell-free DNA result. Among these, sensitivity was 100% for trisomy 21 (58/58, CI: 93.8–100%), trisomy 13 (12/12, CI: 73.5–100%), and fetal sex (358/358 female, CI:99.0–100%; 418/418 male, CI: 99.1–100%), 96.0% for trisomy 18 (24/25, CI: 79.7–99.9%), and 90% for monosomy X (9/10, CI: 55.5–99.8%). Specificity for trisomies 21 and 13 was 100% (905/905 [CI: 99.6–100%] and 953/953 [CI: 99.6–100%], respectively) and for trisomy 18 and monosomy X was 99.9% (938/939 [CI: 99.4–100%] and 953/954 [CI: 99.4–100%], respectively). However, 16% (20/125) of aneuploid samples did not return a result; 50% (10/20) had a fetal fraction below the 1.5th percentile of euploid pregnancies. Aneuploidy rate was significantly higher in these samples (p<0.001, odds ratio: 9.2, CI: 4.4–19.0). Sensitivity and specificity did not differ in low-risk and high-risk populations. Conclusions This noninvasive prenatal screen performed with high sensitivity and specificity in high-risk and low-risk cohorts. Aneuploid samples were significantly more likely to not return a result; the number of aneuploidy samples was especially increased among samples with low fetal fraction. This underscores the importance of redraws or, in rare cases, invasive procedures based on low fetal fraction.
Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of using a targeted array-CGH strategy for prenatal diagnosis of genomic imbalances in a clinical setting of current pregnancies. Methods: Women undergoing prenatal diagnosis were counseled and offered array-CGH (BCM V4.0) in addition to routine chromosome analysis.Array-CGH was performed with DNA directly from amniotic fluid cells with whole genome amplification, on chorionic villus samples with amplification as necessary, and on cultured cells without amplification. Results: Ninety-eight pregnancies (56 amniotic fluid and 42 CVS specimens) were studied with complete concordance between karyotype and array results, including 5 positive cases with chromosomal abnormalities. There was complete concordance of array results for direct and cultured cell analysis in 57 cases tested by both methods. In 12 cases, the array detected copy number variation requiring testing of parental samples for optimal interpretation. Array-CGH results were available in an average of 6 and 16 days for direct and cultured cells, respectively. Patient acceptance of array-CGH testing was 74%. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using array-CGH for prenatal diagnosis, including reliance on direct analysis without culturing cells. Use of array-CGH should increase the detection of abnormalities relative to the risk, and is an option for an enhanced level of screening for chromosomal abnormalities in high risk pregnancies. Genet Med 2006:8(11):719-727.
Background: Gene panels are routinely used to assess predisposition to hereditary cancers by simultaneously testing multiple susceptibility genes and/or variants. More recently, genetic panels have been implemented as part of solid tumor malignancy testing assessing somatic alterations. One example is targeted variant panels for thyroid nodules that are not conclusively malignant or benign upon fine-needle aspiration (FNA). We systematically reviewed published studies from 2009 to 2018 that contained genetic data from preoperative FNA specimens on cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules (ITNs) that subsequently underwent surgical resection. Pooled prevalence estimates per gene and variant, along with their respective positive predictive values (PPVs) for malignancy, were calculated. Summary: Our systematic search identified 540 studies that were supplemented by 18 studies from bibliographies or personal files. Sixty-one studies met all inclusion criteria and included >4600 ITNs. Overall, 26% of nodules contained at least 1 variant or fusion. However, half of them did not include details on the specific gene, variant, and/or complete fusion pair reported for inclusion toward PPV calculations. The PPVs of genomic alterations reported at least 10 times were limited to BRAF V600E (98%, 95% confidence interval [CI 96-99%]), PAX8/ PPARG (55% [CI 34-78%]), HRAS Q61R (45% [CI 22-72%]), BRAF K601E (42% [CI 19-68%]), and NRAS Q61R (38% [CI 23-55%]). Excluding BRAF V600E , the pooled PPV for all other specified variants and fusions was 47%. Multiple variants within the same nodule were identified in *1% of ITN and carried a cumulative PPV of 77%. Conclusions: The chance that a genomic alteration predicts malignancy depends on the individual variant or fusion detected. Only five alterations were reported at least 10 times; BRAF V600E had a PPV of 98%, while the remaining four had individual PPVs ranging from 38% to 55%. The small sample size of most variants and fusion pairs found among ITNs, however, limits confidence in their individual PPV point estimates. Better specific reporting of genomic alterations with cytological category, histological subtype, and cancer staging would facilitate better understanding of cancer prediction, and the independent contribution of the genomic profile to prognosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.